Politics Is Personal


When people argue politics, they tend to argue in abstractions about the effect of policies on society and how political systems achieve or fail to achieve moral outcomes. But when you dig beneath the surface, you will inevitably find that there are deep-seated personal issues driving their political beliefs, and that they stand to gain personally from the policies they advocate, and lose personally from the policies they oppose. But because personal gain is an unconvincing moral argument for how the force of the state should be used, people must cloak their motivations in moral posturing, acting as if they selflessly care about some greater ideal.

Perhaps one of the most profound examples of this phenomenon is feminism. There are a variety of different types of women drawn to feminism, from bossy college girls to spiteful, aging spinsters. The primary motivator for all of these women is increasing their access to high quality men and men’s money. Feminist college girls adopt misandry to scare off beta males and attract only alphas who aren’t scared of them, and because they want a welfare state to reduce their dependence on men, and hiring advantages so that they can out-earn men. Older women sometimes adopt feminism because they feel rejected by the white patriarchy and want to bring in handsome migrant boy toys. They will rarely tell men what they find attractive, and will play all kinds of sophisticated 3D chess moves in order to shift the balance of power in their favor, including bringing in millions of military age men into the west to compete with white males. But at its root, feminism is a tool that women use to increase their collective power at the expense of men. In the pure economic sense, men and women make deals with each other in order to get what they want, and the world of negotiation is complex and involves political lobbying, obfuscation and a variety of sophisticated tactics, most of which are employed by women due to their natural lack of power and declining sexual market value.

Next we have the phenomenon of minority voters. They tend to vote for whichever party favors open borders and bringing in more people like themselves. Minorities often feel left out in white society, and feel that they deserve to be equals in white countries, just like white Christians are treated as equals in Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe. They want to bring over as many extended family members as possible, and they want to collect welfare. These personal motivations inevitably drive them to vote for left wing parties, even though they actually tend to have very conservative social beliefs, when it comes to gay marriage etc. Even Muslims vote Democrat, despite believing that homosexuality should be illegal, such is their desire to see America transformed into a multicultural paradise. The West is up for grabs because white societies are peaceful, modern and offer lots of opportunity – but that’s not because of white people, it’s because of white privilege, colonialism and slavery!

Finally, beta males who don’t feel adequate to compete in the dog eat dog capitalist marketplace, also tend to be progressives. They feel intimidated by alpha males and scared of the work and sacrifice it takes to get what you want in a free society. So instead they latch on to social justice issues, using a variety of narratives to guilt alpha males into believing they don’t deserve what they have, because capitalism is theft! Beta males also choose to white knight in order to attract women, causing them to adopt feminism and join the women’s march etc. Beta males want an egalitarian society run by Bernie Sanders, in which rich alpha males get taxed at 90% to reduce their sexual market value, and scrawny communist activists get to have a living wage, free education and a $15 minimum wage to raise their sexual market value. Some beta males, like the feminist spinsters, are just nihilistic and hate society so much that they want to see it burn. These people are more concerned with tearing things down than building society up, explaining their hatred of Trump and their love for Bernie Sanders, who supports Venezuela-like policies. Sometimes we need to burn society to the ground to make it equal, so we can start all over again – it worked in Zimbabwe, so why not here?

So the lesson is, politics is personal. To understand why someone supports a political cause, look beyond their moral posturing and evaluate the person as a whole. If they are fat, badly groomed, poor or deficient in some way, they probably have personal motivations for their political beliefs, and it’s likely you, conservative white males, who will have to pay if they get their way. Luckily for us progressives, conservatives are still making moral arguments about the future of our children and society, which will never appeal to personally-motivated progressives who only seek hedonistic pleasures and status. As long as conservatives keep making moral arguments, instead of understanding that this is a war of personal interests, we will continue to win.


Wow – what a great mutli-layered post!

The last pararaph somehow reminded me of Aesop’s ‘the fox without a tail’

Black Lives Matter

Trump’s supporters say he is an alpha male. Progressives know what that really means: BULLY, RACIST, and MISOGYNIST.

I really hope Don Lemon runs for President.

Ted Cruz
Ted Cruz

Don Lemon? Wasn’t he that Jeopardy TV show chumpion?

Ted Cruz
Ted Cruz

I tried reading this backwards; it made no sense that way, either.

Vladmir Putin
Vladmir Putin

What I would like to propose is if a new law is made, then we print one copy for each person that the law is supposed to apply. So for Obamacare we print 330+ million copies. Then we bring the law maker, in this case Obama, to the main square, and shove the copies up his ass. When the last copy is up his ass, everyone cheers, the law is now passed, and we can actively enforce it.
The same thing goes for news. If the newspaper expects to sell a thousand copies, then we print 1000 copies of the news, and shove it up the editor’s or journalist’s ass. We can watch the news in action, before reading it.

People in the UN, who make rules for a billion+ people, can eat accredited food, and accredited pharmaceuticals, so that they have extra-wide ass to support their law/rule making adventure.

Once this is in place, all news, rules, and laws will make sense. We’ll still have zero law-makers, as in the case of Obamacare, who read the document, before making it into law, but at least it will all make sense.

Vladmir Putin
Vladmir Putin

It is not impalement, the laws have to be printed on paper, before they can be shoved in. No aloe! This is more like an ALS ice bucket challenge, for a cause, for a lawful society.

Advantage is more with sizeable asses like Chris Christie who can pass more laws, than with skinny asses like Obama. Obamacare will be dead on arrival.